Why are condoms wrong?

[Jermosh]

Condom has many uses, in sex though, its used as a contraceptive and a PPD against STDs and in the rare case of severe semen allergic reaction.

Contraception part is pretty well known and straight forward for a marriage. The PPD part is a little different and needs thought and investigation.

 

[rotlex]

You are obviously not alone in your thoughts on this, and I find these discussions always interesting.

My own thoughts and feelings? I am considered by anyone that knows me to be a devout Catholic. My wife and I married very young, she was 19, I was going on 21. Over the past 20+ years of marriage, we have used numerous forms of contraception. In the early years, not really thinking much of it. Once we conceived our first child, our thoughts on this subject changed drastically. Having our first child made us realize what a gift life truly was, and that using any sort of chemical means of birth control that might damage, or even kill, an unborn child became a nightmare thought for us.

With that said, we do still use methods. Barrier type only, along with the occasional withdrawl. I cannot, as a practicing Catholic\Christian, see absolutely anything wrong with using this type of “birth control” with ones spouse. Especially if you have been open to life on numerous occasions, and have children that you are raising in the faith. (We currently have 2 beautiful gifts from God that we are raising as devoutly as possible).

We have read most, if not all, of the abundant sources of information regarding this, put out by both the Church and others, and still cannot come to the conclusion that it makes any sense whatsoever that a married couple cannot simply engage in sexual activity for pleasure. Let me go even past that and say that I cannot conceive that God himself is going to condemn me for having sex with my wife, and not being open to life on every single occasion.

I also struggle with arguments such as Onan, which has nothing to do with contraception, as well as the statements always made regarding even Luther, and Protestant denominations shunning contraception until the early years of the last century. I’m not saying they did not, but I am saying I believe certain motives are always in place. The motives to control people, the belief, that MANY still hold, that sex is “dirty” other than if used to create babies.

The bottom line, for me an my family at least, is that if you are a married couple, loving, living and growing together, who either have children, or have attempted to, then, well, I think God is OK with sex for simply the unitive purpose.

I’m sure many will read this and condemn me, or simply quote “but the Church teaches xyz” etc., but I say to them you are missing my point entirely.

 

[Des]

I’ve heard this a million times in some variation or another, yet strangely it seems to make no sense. I wonder if it’s because it’s a fallacy of non-sequitir, which would mean it actually doesn’t make sense.

How is a condom or birth control “like” the husband saying “I don’t want to make love to part of you that creates babies” How? How? - If anything, you are making love to that part

How do you not get this? Every other non Catholic I’ve explained to this way seems to understand it in some sense. Seriously, nothing will help you if you can’t even find any sort of reasoning behind what I said. The ability of a woman to have children is naturally part of her being for a certain time throughout her life. If you as a husband wish her to hide this area, then you’re asking her not to give her entire self to you. This explanation really can’t get any easier than that. I’m sorry you can’t comprehend what I’m saying here.

What’s happening here is you’ve read parts of Theology of the Body, or something along those lines, not fully understood it, and now are trying to explain it to someone else, and blundering everywhere.

You obviously won’t allow yourself to grasp a deeper and fuller understanding of the conjugal act between husband and wife because of your selfish need for nookie nookie. You want to take away what God intended this to be.

How is the use of a condom not fully accepting the spouse? It injures a pure “conjugal” act? How are they accepting each other fully in NFP when a lot of these couples are intentionally intimate during a period when they know that pregnancy is not going to happen?

Again, the woman is using her NATURAL cycle therefore her husband is accepting her entire self at the time of love making. She isn’t hiding anything. Both her fertile and unfertile self is part of her make-up.

The possibility of conceiving is present with the use of a condom too, and couples know this as well. It’s more effective than NFP however.

There’s nothing natural with condoms now is there. Especially when used to intentionally look beyond the fertile moment of your wife. I honesty now can see you reeeeeally don’t get this. Or you choose not to.

I can retort back at Paul VI asking him, or whoever assisting him in writing that encyclical, by posing a specific situation - What if the couple are in dire financial need, and really cannot afford having another child? Should they use NFP anyways and risk bringing a child into this world when at the moment they are in a risky financial situation, or perhaps the man is unemployed?

Yes what if, what if, what if. It’s called trusting in the Lord which you appear to lack. Paul connected marriage with the spousal love of Christ and the Mystical Church. Maybe start from there till you can make sense of it. If the Church started to deny areas of Christ while attempting to be in full communion with Him, there’d certainly be a problem wouldn’t there.

I find “selfish calculations” funny too, because NFP revolves around doing those interesting calculations, the period of the month, etc.

Wow, you seriously behave like an immature 12 year old. How old are you?

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

How do you not get this? Every other non Catholic I’ve explained to this way seems to understand it in some sense.

Or are probably sick of hearing it, and just agree nonchalantly.

Seriously, nothing will help you if you can’t even find any sort of reasoning behind what I said. The ability of a woman to have children is naturally part of her being for a certain time throughout her life.

Who said I’m looking for help? First try to decipher the intention of the poster before irrelevantly posting something.

If you as a husband wish her to hide this area, then you’re asking her not to give her entire self to you. This explanation really can’t get any easier than that. I’m sorry you can’t comprehend what I’m saying here.

It’s more that your explanation makes no sense, and I’m not the only one that has echoed this sentiment, you obviously are living in a bubble if you don’t realize how many Catholics know of HV and disagree with it, and also ToB.

You obviously won’t allow yourself to grasp a deeper and fuller understanding of the conjugal act between husband and wife because of your selfish need for nookie nookie. You want to take away what God intended this to be.

Judging by your ignorant explanation which was not even accurate, I think I have about several years more understanding of theology and philosophy than you. In fact, I’m 100% sure, I can convince someone of NFP better than you can, I’m that confident you actually don’t know what you’re talking about.

Wow, you seriously behave like an immature 12 year old. How old are you?

22, you obviously didn’t get what I was laughing at. I was laughing at the irony of Paul VI’s statement about selfish calculations, when NFP revolves around that.

I must ask now, how old are you to miss the blantantly obvious point?

G’day.

 

[Des]

Who said I’m looking for help? First try to decipher the intention of the poster before irrelevantly posting something.

Which explains alot about you. You first must seek to try to understand in order to understand. I actually thought you were trying to make sense of it. Seems you were just being a troll. Thanks for clearing that up though.

It’s more that your explanation makes no sense, and I’m not the only one that has echoed this sentiment, you obviously are living in a bubble if you don’t realize how many Catholics know of HV and disagree with it, and also ToB.

And you’re living in a bubble to actually think condoms are 100 percent effective against HIV. And any Catholic that feels condoms should be allowed in such a case would clearly be risking theirs or their spouse’s lives with the disease. But if you wish to seriously consider that to be a kind of altruistic behaviour, then be my guest.

It was ridiculous for you to have even mentioned the HIV part actually like you seriously thought you were making a case for yourself.

Judging by your ignorant explanation which was not even accurate, I think I have about several years more understanding of theology and philosophy than you. In fact, I’m 100% sure, I can convince someone of NFP better than you can, I’m that confident you actually don’t know what you’re talking about.

Ah yes. Suspicious Mind, the great polemicist.

22, you obviously didn’t get what I was laughing at. I was laughing at the irony of Paul VI’s statement about selfish calculations, when NFP revolves around that.

You did it twice and it looked very juvenile regardless.

I must ask now, how old are you to miss the blantantly obvious point?

My age is irrelevant at this point Jr. And there was no point of yours to miss as explained above.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Which explains alot about you. You first must seek to try to understand in order to understand. I actually thought you were trying to make sense of it. Seems you were just being a troll. Thanks for clearing that up though.

I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say here.

And you’re living in a bubble to actually think condoms are 100 percent effective against HIV.

I said HV, not HIV - HV being Humanae Vitae - which is not that hard to figure out because I said ToB (Theology of the Body) in the same sentence.

And any Catholic that feels condoms should be allowed in such a case would clearly be risking theirs or their spouse’s lives with the disease. But if you wish to seriously consider that to be a kind of altruistic behaviour, then be my guest.

See above.

It was ridiculous for you to have even mentioned the HIV part actually like you seriously thought you were making a case for yourself.

It was ridiculous for you to have misread HV as HIV.

Feeling a bit embarassed now?

 

[Des]

Feeling a bit embarrassed now?

If I was in grade school I would. I skimmed your nonsensical post. End of story. My rebuttal to any HIV/Condom excuse still stands however.

And loved how you had to tell me my error twice in one post showing your maturity level again.

As for the Catholics not ‘getting’ the Pope’s encyclical, I can’t speak for them. Sometimes Catholics just have to go by faith till you can make sense of it.

 

[JimG]

I also struggle with arguments such as Onan, which has nothing to do with contraception, as well as the statements always made regarding even Luther, and Protestant denominations shunning contraception until the early years of the last century. I’m not saying they did not, but I am saying I believe certain motives are always in place. The motives to control people, the belief, that MANY still hold, that sex is “dirty” other than if used to create babies.

What is remarkable to me, though, is this: The Catholic Church has taught this doctrine consistently for 2,000 years. Since the Protestant reformation, the Protestant churches taught the very same doctrine consistently for 400 years. It is only since 1930 that many Christians have made the judgment that the Catholic Church got it wrong for 2,000 years, and the Protestant churches got it wrong for 400 years. Now we know better.

That strikes me as a bit of modern chutzpah.

URL="What is remarkable to me, though, is this: The Catholic Church has taught this doctrine consistently for 2,000 years; since the Protestant reformation, the protestant churches taught the very same doctrine consistently for 400 years. It is only since 1930 that many Christians have made the judgment that the Catholic Church got it wrong for 2,000 years, and the Protestant church got it wrong for 400 years. Now we know better.

That strikes me as a bit of modern chutzpah.

 

[rotlex]

What is remarkable to me, though, is this: The Catholic Church has taught this doctrine consistently for 2,000 years. Since the Protestant reformation, the Protestant churches taught the very same doctrine consistently for 400 years. It is only since 1930 that many Christians have made the judgment that the Catholic Church got it wrong for 2,000 years, and the Protestant churches got it wrong for 400 years. Now we know better.

That strikes me as a bit of modern chutzpah.

I have to admit, I do agree with you, to some degree on this. However, for me, personally, and yes, after 20+ years of being very, very in love, and married to, the same wonderful woman, I still have issue with anyone teaching that sex, for pleasure, between man and wife, is wrong, even if using barrier methods of contraception. I do realize the same doctrine has been taught for a very long time. I just think, again, personally. They were wrong then, and are wrong now.

I have prayerfully, at times, painfully, considered this over the years, and whole heartily believe that God is not misleading me in my belief. I have confessed it in the past, and yes, I do still struggle with the issue bit, but in the end, I feel I am not being mislead in my belief.

 

[mchale]

This is in no way any kind of reasonable explanation, it falls short on so many levels, primarily in cogency. Let me try to rephrase it into a structure of an argument:

1. Condoms and birth control are wrong (premise)
2. They are wrong because the husband/wife is (implicitly) saying they don’t want to make love to the part that creates babies (reasoning)

I think you kind of missed the original argument here. Lets try structuring it a bit differently.

1. Premise: Sex was created by God to be the most total possible sharing possible between a husband and wife. That sharing occurs on multiple levels, physical, emotional and spiritual.
2. Premise: Any act which reduces this sharing is reducing the good that God intended for sex.
3. Premise: Any act which knowingly reduces God’s intended good is intrinsically evil.

Contraception limits the total sharing between a husband and a wife. It is the deliberate denial of access to the fertility of one’s partner (Even if both sides agree to that denial). In addition, contraception adds an artificial element to the equation and thus goes against natural law. Lets consider that condoms actually place a physical barrier between the husband and the wife. The most intimate parts of them are not united, as God intended, but rather, separated by the condom. In addition, it prevents part of the husband’s gift to his wife (his fertility) from entering her.

Now, lets consider the objection that many raise that NFP is in fact a similar with-holding. This comparison fails for follow reasons. The Church has never mandated that Catholics may only have sex when fertile nor has it implied that having sex outside a fertile period is less of a total giving of oneself to one’s spouse than having it during the wife’s fertile period. Therefore Catholic spouses are allowed to choose, for their own legitimate reasons when they will and won’t have sex. If I don’t go home and have sex with my wife tonight, it might be for many reasons, not just to prevent pregnancy (for example, tonight it might be because I am dog tired and not feeling the best).

In addition, NFP does not contradict natural law. Essentially a couple works with the natural cycle of the woman to determine when the best time to have sex is.

Finally of course, NFP is not just used for contraception. Couple can and do also use it to help them get pregnant (If they are having trouble otherwise).

Anyway, I hope for some this clears things up a bit.

–
Bill

 

[JimG]

For another take on the issue, go to Jennifer Fulwiler’s blog
Conversion Diary

Then, on the left hand column, under “Most Popular Posts,” click on “Contraception and a Woman’s Self-Image.” I wasn’t able to link to it directly.

 

[tjm190]

What is remarkable to me, though, is this: The Catholic Church has taught this doctrine consistently for 2,000 years. Since the Protestant reformation, the Protestant churches taught the very same doctrine consistently for 400 years. It is only since 1930 that many Christians have made the judgment that the Catholic Church got it wrong for 2,000 years, and the Protestant churches got it wrong for 400 years. Now we know better.

That strikes me as a bit of modern chutzpah.

Old does not imply correct

 

[JimG]

Old does not imply correct

Apparently not. New doctrine is so much more pleasant than old doctrine.

 

[mchale]

Old does not imply correct

Perhaps not, but it does mean the burden of proof is on those who claim the contrary.

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

Perhaps not, but it does mean the burden of proof is on those who claim the contrary.

–
Bill

Not really- sure, there are old arguments that need refuting, but that doesn’t mean the old side ‘wins ties’ by default.

 

[Des]

I do realize the same doctrine has been taught for a very long time. I just think, again, personally. They were wrong then, and are wrong now.

I have prayerfully, at times, painfully, considered this over the years, and whole heartily believe that God is not misleading me in my belief. I have confessed it in the past, and yes, I do still struggle with the issue bit, but in the end, I feel I am not being mislead in my belief.

The constant moral teachings through the ordinary Magisterium of the Church is as binding on its members as its dogmatically defined doctrinal counterparts. Otherwise, all other teachings of the Magisterium are non-infallible and are subject to 180 degree changes like abortion, euthanasia, whether Jesus rose from the dead etc. If any Catholic suggest they know better, then they deceive themselves, absolutely.

For another take on the issue, go to Jennifer Fulwiler’s blog
Conversion Diary

Then, on the left hand column, under “Most Popular Posts,” click on “Contraception and a Woman’s Self-Image.” I wasn’t able to link to it directly.

Thanks Jim. I thought this was a nice analogy from one of the links she provided regarding conception and NFP.

To some people this seems like splitting hairs. “What’s the big difference,” they ask, “between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? The end result is the same: both couples avoid children.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between killing Grandma and just waiting until she dies naturally? End result’s the same thing: dead Grandma. Yes, but one is a serious sin called murder, and the other is an act of God.

If a person can tell the difference between euthanasia and natural death, he can tell the difference between contraception and NFP. It’s the same difference. I’m not equating contraception and murder. That’s not the analogy. Rather, Grandma’s natural death and a woman’s natural period of infertility are both acts of God. But in killing Grandma or in rendering sex sterile, we take the powers of life into our own hands—just like the deceiver originally tempted us to do—and make ourselves like God (see Gn 3:5).

 

[rotlex]

The constant moral teachings through the ordinary Magisterium of the Church is as binding on its members as its dogmatically defined doctrinal counterparts. Otherwise, all other teachings of the Magisterium are non-infallible and are subject to 180 degree changes like abortion, euthanasia, whether Jesus rose from the dead etc. If any Catholic suggest they know better, then they deceive themselves, absolutely.

Thanks Jim. I thought this was a nice analogy from one of the links she provided regarding conception and NFP.

To some people this seems like splitting hairs. “What’s the big difference,” they ask, “between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? The end result is the same: both couples avoid children.” To which I respond, what’s the big difference between killing Grandma and just waiting until she dies naturally? End result’s the same thing: dead Grandma. Yes, but one is a serious sin called murder, and the other is an act of God.

If a person can tell the difference between euthanasia and natural death, he can tell the difference between contraception and NFP. It’s the same difference. I’m not equating contraception and murder. That’s not the analogy. Rather, Grandma’s natural death and a woman’s natural period of infertility are both acts of God. But in killing Grandma or in rendering sex sterile, we take the powers of life into our own hands—just like the deceiver originally tempted us to do—and make ourselves like God (see Gn 3:5).

Boggles my mind how someone can compare killing grandma vs dying naturally, to condom use between married people. To say that contraception vs NFP is the same as the difference between euthanasia and natural death, is well, just as boggling. Whoever wrote this, or thinks this way, must be drinking some seriously strong Kook-Aid.

 

[exoflare]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

That and perhaps the fact that if NFP was more effective, people would obviously be using that method wouldn’t they

sigh You’re being rather snarky and overconfident for someone who cites wikipedia as a source… but overlooking that for now, maybe you should have looked through ALL wikipedia had to say on the topic rather than cherrypicking convenient summary data from a single table. From the article Fertility Awareness:

The effectiveness of fertility awareness, as of most forms of contraception, can be assessed two ways. Perfect use or method effectiveness rates only include people who follow all observational rules, correctly identify the fertile phase, and refrain from unprotected intercourse on days identified as fertile. Actual use, or typical use effectiveness rates are of all women relying on fertility awareness to avoid pregnancy, including those who fail to meet the “perfect use” criteria. Rates are generally presented for the first year of use.[31] Most commonly the Pearl Index is used to calculate effectiveness rates, but some studies use decrement tables.[32] The failure rate of fertility awareness varies widely depending on the system used to identify fertile days, the instructional method, and the population being studied. Some studies have found actual failure rates of 25% per year or higher.[33][34][35] At least one study has found a failure rate of less than 1% per year with continuous intensive coaching and monthly review,[36] and several studies have found actual failure rates of 2-3% per year.[37][38][29][39]
When used correctly and consistently with ongoing coaching, some studies have shown some forms of FA to be 99% effective,[40][41][36][42] the same as oral contraceptives.[43]

 

[tjm190]

Boggles my mind how someone can compare killing grandma vs dying naturally, to condom use between married people. To say that contraception vs NFP is the same as the difference between euthanasia and natural death, is well, just as boggling. Whoever wrote this, or thinks this way, must be drinking some seriously strong Kook-Aid.

It’s a valid, but not complete argument- it seeks to show, correctly, that NFP and contraception are not the same. That argument, to me, does not attempt to illustrate that contraception is wrong. You could just as easily throw in “wait for it to rain vs. seeding the clouds” or “wait for the water level to be what you want vs. build a dam and control the flow”- that shows the difference between natural and artificial. However, it does not address the criticism that ‘waiting’ for the infertile periods to have sex is unnatural.

It is an incomplete argument, but it shows what it seeks to.

 

[kingal86]

Thank you, apology accepted.

How is NFP any different? I think it has something to do with NFP being more natural, but truthfully I don’t really know.

That’s the best I could do.

I guess NFP has a higher chance of conception–so is still “more open to life”–than using condoms, and NFP doesn’t put an artificial barrier between husband and wife during intercourse, which interfers with the natural union between them.

I don’t agree with the Catholic teaching on this (and don’t consider the thermometer stuff that “natural”), but this is my understanding of the Church’s teaching on the matter.